Post by Angus on Jun 22, 2011 18:32:49 GMT 1
www.doglost.co.uk/dog_blog.php?dogId=16328
Owner's Blackmail Anguish
Kent Police working in collaboration with DogLost has had success in a custodial sentence being issued for a dog theft and blackmail demand for £10,000.
In December 2008, Scamp, a small terrier cross escaped whilst having a bath while his Slough based owner was staying with relatives in Folkestone, Kent.
After contacting DogLost, Scamp's owner was advised to get as many posters out around the area as possible. Days later she started receiving phone calls from a woman who stated she had Scamp and asked if there was a reward.
Up to 25 harrowing calls followed over the Christmas period resulting in Scamp's owner Melanie and her young children becoming especially distressed as the calls became even more threatening on Christmas Eve.
When they should have been preparing for a happy family Christmas, instead they were asked by the thief, "how much do you love your dog?" and, "How much are you prepared to pay to get him back?"
The calls continued throughout the night, over Christmas Day culminating at 2am on Boxing Day with a demand that Melanie had to pay £10,000 to get her dog back.
DogLost coordinators who audibly witnessed the calls and were on hand to speak to Melanie throughout the day and night were able to reassure her that the situation had changed from a missing dog to a ransom which required police involvement.
As Melanie made a call during the night to the police call centre, the thief rang back on her mobile phone, a call which was recorded by the police listening on the landline and realising that the £10,000 demand was serious, they took action.
In an amazing "sting", Melanie was able to stall the thief for time by pretending she needed to find the money from an ATM and borrow a car.
Having returned to Slough she liaised with Folkestone Police CID who then followed through with a meeting outside the railway station in the dead of the night. Telephone contact was maintained with the owner at all times, whilst an undercover officer pretended to be Melanie and waited for the thief to arrive for the exchange of Scamp for money.
Sure enough, Maria Louka and her accomplice were lying in wait with an offensive weapon in her pocket along with Scamp. Demanding the £10,000 from the undercover police officer, both were arrested and Scamp was taken to safety having clearly not been looked after during his ordeal.
Police confirmed the matter would be taken to court and that DogLost co-ordinators would be called as witnesses. Since 2008 the court attempted to prosecute, but the demands for psychiatric evaluations of one party led to repeated postponing of the case.
Finally, in February 2010, Maria Louka suddenly changed her plea to guilty and was remanded in custody pending sentencing. DogLost was in court to hear the sentence being handed down on Thursday 29 April.
The judge stated in his summing up that despite the medical reports provided to him, Maria Louka knew what she was doing. He said that she had clearly asked questions about what road the owner was using to meet her in and took scissors as a form of weapon to reinforce her actions.
When arrested she further lied about being pregnant. The judge then went on to say that he had "no doubt that what the thief did was a very serious matter, an ugly and serious offence, which caused distress to the owner," and that having considered all reports he was "satisfied that the appropriate sentence was a custodial one."
Maria Louka received a sentence of 21 months for blackmail, 12 months for the theft of a dog and 12 months for carrying an offensive weapon, all to run concurrently less time in remand. Half the sentence must be served in prison.
DogLost is delighted at the outcome of this case which was one of the most harrowing cases where an owner has had to be supported. It is felt that this sentence shows that because of the determined actions of Kent Police which actively worked in conjunction with DogLost to apprehend the thief and to take the case to court, the message that dog theft cannot and will not be tolerated by the public or the authorities is even more greatly enforced.
Sadly, there is no happy ending for Scamp, for when he returned to Melanie and her family he was never the same dog and showed signs of brain problems, leading to repeated fits. On 6 January last year he suffered a large fit from which he never recovered. Melanie and her family, however, were determined that in his memory that Scamp’s ordeal should still be told and his thief brought to justice. DogLost would like to thank all those involved at Kent Police for their assistance in bringing this matter to a successful conclusion.
Court Profile of Billy Paul Sharp – 15 Nov 2010
Judge Caddick, presiding.
On 1 Sept 2010 the defendant, aged 26, pleaded guilty to blackmail and theft. At sentencing, his criminal record was read out, including a new offence committed since the date of the original crime: on 18 March 2009 Billy Sharp was arrested for possession of a bladed article, and despite pleading not guilty was found guilty on 8 October 2010. Sentencing for that offence was deferred until today's hearing. Previous offences included shop lifting, possession of Class A drugs, handling stolen goods, criminal damage & assault of a police officer and excess alcohol as well as offences relating to failure to comply with sentences and orders in relation to these offences.
A letter, not a medical report as requested in the original trial, was provided by the defence, from the Kent & Medway Mental Health team, that showed that the defendant suffers from Schizophrenia and that he does have frequent treatment for it. It was stated that he had not taken medication for this at the time of the offence. This condition has now stabilised and he is said to now be in a stable relationship with Maria Louka, with whom he lives. The defence suggested a suspended sentence and curfew may therefore be more appropriate to custody. It was stated that a previous six week spell on remand in custody for a withdrawn sexual offence arrest was traumatic for the defendant and that any further custody may therefore also be traumatic.
The offences today under consideration were blackmail, theft and the unrelated bladed article offence. Judge Caddick stated that the blackmail and bladed article offences crossed the custodial sentence threshold and he considered that, particularly in the case of blackmail that it was "a very mean and nasty offence which caused an enormous amount of distress to the lady concerned, not just because it was her dog but also how you (Sharp) went about it... you (Sharp) played your part although I accept that the main part was Louka and I bear in mind all reports... and appreciate that [the offences] have their root in your social background and mental health."
Judge Caddick also said he was bearing in mind that he had had a taste of prison which affected him and showed him what offending can and will lead to if he carries on offending, but he did indeed carry on offending.
The offences should carry a custodial sentence of between 18 and 21 months but Judge Caddick said he can and should take the unusual course of action of not sending him to prison now, but instead making an order taking into account the factors surrounding the offences.
A Community Order (not suspended) for a period of 12 months was imposed and was subject to a Supervision Order, in order to get Sharp's life "back on track," for each of the three offences, to run concurrently. The Supervision Order is also for a period of 12 months and includes the requirement to attend Probation Officer appointments as requested; to notify Probation Officers of any changes of address and quite sternly, Judge Caddick stated that if Sharp didn't comply with the Community & Supervision Order, then he would be brought back to court in front of only Judge Caddick and, whilst a Community Order could be extended to provide more onerous requirements of the sentence, he would not be looking at such an option and instead Sharp would be imprisoned for between 18 and 21 months for any such breach.
Kent Police working in collaboration with DogLost has had success in a custodial sentence being issued for a dog theft and blackmail demand for £10,000.
In December 2008, Scamp, a small terrier cross escaped whilst having a bath while his Slough based owner was staying with relatives in Folkestone, Kent.
After contacting DogLost, Scamp's owner was advised to get as many posters out around the area as possible. Days later she started receiving phone calls from a woman who stated she had Scamp and asked if there was a reward.
Up to 25 harrowing calls followed over the Christmas period resulting in Scamp's owner Melanie and her young children becoming especially distressed as the calls became even more threatening on Christmas Eve.
When they should have been preparing for a happy family Christmas, instead they were asked by the thief, "how much do you love your dog?" and, "How much are you prepared to pay to get him back?"
The calls continued throughout the night, over Christmas Day culminating at 2am on Boxing Day with a demand that Melanie had to pay £10,000 to get her dog back.
DogLost coordinators who audibly witnessed the calls and were on hand to speak to Melanie throughout the day and night were able to reassure her that the situation had changed from a missing dog to a ransom which required police involvement.
As Melanie made a call during the night to the police call centre, the thief rang back on her mobile phone, a call which was recorded by the police listening on the landline and realising that the £10,000 demand was serious, they took action.
In an amazing "sting", Melanie was able to stall the thief for time by pretending she needed to find the money from an ATM and borrow a car.
Having returned to Slough she liaised with Folkestone Police CID who then followed through with a meeting outside the railway station in the dead of the night. Telephone contact was maintained with the owner at all times, whilst an undercover officer pretended to be Melanie and waited for the thief to arrive for the exchange of Scamp for money.
Sure enough, Maria Louka and her accomplice were lying in wait with an offensive weapon in her pocket along with Scamp. Demanding the £10,000 from the undercover police officer, both were arrested and Scamp was taken to safety having clearly not been looked after during his ordeal.
Police confirmed the matter would be taken to court and that DogLost co-ordinators would be called as witnesses. Since 2008 the court attempted to prosecute, but the demands for psychiatric evaluations of one party led to repeated postponing of the case.
Finally, in February 2010, Maria Louka suddenly changed her plea to guilty and was remanded in custody pending sentencing. DogLost was in court to hear the sentence being handed down on Thursday 29 April.
The judge stated in his summing up that despite the medical reports provided to him, Maria Louka knew what she was doing. He said that she had clearly asked questions about what road the owner was using to meet her in and took scissors as a form of weapon to reinforce her actions.
When arrested she further lied about being pregnant. The judge then went on to say that he had "no doubt that what the thief did was a very serious matter, an ugly and serious offence, which caused distress to the owner," and that having considered all reports he was "satisfied that the appropriate sentence was a custodial one."
Maria Louka received a sentence of 21 months for blackmail, 12 months for the theft of a dog and 12 months for carrying an offensive weapon, all to run concurrently less time in remand. Half the sentence must be served in prison.
DogLost is delighted at the outcome of this case which was one of the most harrowing cases where an owner has had to be supported. It is felt that this sentence shows that because of the determined actions of Kent Police which actively worked in conjunction with DogLost to apprehend the thief and to take the case to court, the message that dog theft cannot and will not be tolerated by the public or the authorities is even more greatly enforced.
Sadly, there is no happy ending for Scamp, for when he returned to Melanie and her family he was never the same dog and showed signs of brain problems, leading to repeated fits. On 6 January last year he suffered a large fit from which he never recovered. Melanie and her family, however, were determined that in his memory that Scamp’s ordeal should still be told and his thief brought to justice. DogLost would like to thank all those involved at Kent Police for their assistance in bringing this matter to a successful conclusion.
Court Profile of Billy Paul Sharp – 15 Nov 2010
Judge Caddick, presiding.
On 1 Sept 2010 the defendant, aged 26, pleaded guilty to blackmail and theft. At sentencing, his criminal record was read out, including a new offence committed since the date of the original crime: on 18 March 2009 Billy Sharp was arrested for possession of a bladed article, and despite pleading not guilty was found guilty on 8 October 2010. Sentencing for that offence was deferred until today's hearing. Previous offences included shop lifting, possession of Class A drugs, handling stolen goods, criminal damage & assault of a police officer and excess alcohol as well as offences relating to failure to comply with sentences and orders in relation to these offences.
A letter, not a medical report as requested in the original trial, was provided by the defence, from the Kent & Medway Mental Health team, that showed that the defendant suffers from Schizophrenia and that he does have frequent treatment for it. It was stated that he had not taken medication for this at the time of the offence. This condition has now stabilised and he is said to now be in a stable relationship with Maria Louka, with whom he lives. The defence suggested a suspended sentence and curfew may therefore be more appropriate to custody. It was stated that a previous six week spell on remand in custody for a withdrawn sexual offence arrest was traumatic for the defendant and that any further custody may therefore also be traumatic.
The offences today under consideration were blackmail, theft and the unrelated bladed article offence. Judge Caddick stated that the blackmail and bladed article offences crossed the custodial sentence threshold and he considered that, particularly in the case of blackmail that it was "a very mean and nasty offence which caused an enormous amount of distress to the lady concerned, not just because it was her dog but also how you (Sharp) went about it... you (Sharp) played your part although I accept that the main part was Louka and I bear in mind all reports... and appreciate that [the offences] have their root in your social background and mental health."
Judge Caddick also said he was bearing in mind that he had had a taste of prison which affected him and showed him what offending can and will lead to if he carries on offending, but he did indeed carry on offending.
The offences should carry a custodial sentence of between 18 and 21 months but Judge Caddick said he can and should take the unusual course of action of not sending him to prison now, but instead making an order taking into account the factors surrounding the offences.
A Community Order (not suspended) for a period of 12 months was imposed and was subject to a Supervision Order, in order to get Sharp's life "back on track," for each of the three offences, to run concurrently. The Supervision Order is also for a period of 12 months and includes the requirement to attend Probation Officer appointments as requested; to notify Probation Officers of any changes of address and quite sternly, Judge Caddick stated that if Sharp didn't comply with the Community & Supervision Order, then he would be brought back to court in front of only Judge Caddick and, whilst a Community Order could be extended to provide more onerous requirements of the sentence, he would not be looking at such an option and instead Sharp would be imprisoned for between 18 and 21 months for any such breach.
Attachments:
